Just announced by the election commission.
Since this is the Tatler, I blame Ron Paul.
Of course, Chavez pays them.
Why pay anyone when he can restrict freedom of press and oppress the opposition? I doubt the results were completely honest. This may sound like extreme rhetoric given the iron-fisted grip most Latin American tyrants (including U.S.-backed right-wing ones like Pinochet) exert on “elections,” but knowing the Chavez government, even with a 60-40 majority vote in favor of Capriles, it seems like they’d do everything they could to stay in power. This is just conjecture, but I’m sure at least a few people voted Chavez out of fear of perceived government repercussions had they voted for the opposition. The fact that it was so close, even with a government that controls the media and inundates citizens with pro-Chavez propaganda, is a definite sign that even poor people in Venezuela are waking up to how terrible the government’s “solutions” are; if people were actually swallowing the BS that is Chavismo wholeheartedly, we’d probably see much more of a landslide victory.
The Wall Street Journal had a great article on this:
The title is the best four-word summary of the elections I’ve seen yet.
Here’s the link to the article:
We could be looking at our future! I look for much the same on 6-7 Nov 12 here in the US.
Which brings up an interesting question–do the people have the right to fundamentally change the social compact merely by election of an office holder or representative, or do more substantive changes require a different route? In other words, what are the moral obligations of the losers?
Leaving aside the moral obligations of the losers for a bit–and honestly, for the middle class in Venezuela I see no good options other than emigration–I believe the answer to my question of whether or not the people can change the fundamental pillars of the social compact merely by dint of normal election to be “no”. A normal election can only elect individuals with a charter to operate within certain already defined bounds. It cannot change those bounds–something more is needed. Our Constitution certainly supports this principle, with its requirement for amendments.
John Roberts, of course, would let someone just tax a social compact change into being. But be that as it may, I think the history of the Founding of this Republic clearly shows extra-ordinary changes require use of extra-ordinary procedures, not routine ones. Or else the “shareholder interest” the minority holds is not respected, since things get fundamentally changed on whims caused by transient periods of passion, and nothing becomes certain. Every election becomes a game of “bet the Republic”.
Successful democracies simply cannot be solely about majority rule. That must be the guiding principle, of course–but should not be the universal trump card.
And if I may say something considered impolitic today, though true nonetheless–it is only the implicit threat that if things are changed without consent obtained through proper means that there will be dissolution and breakup that keeps things from changing without consent being obtained through proper means; and from there being dissolution and breakup.
let the arrests and disappearances begin!
In the immortal words of Devo: “I saw a man in a rage scream ‘Put me back in my cage.’”
Comments are closed.
Copyright © 2005-2012 PJ Media All Rights Reserved. v1.000016